{"id":11575,"date":"2021-04-21T07:26:38","date_gmt":"2021-04-21T11:26:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=11575"},"modified":"2021-04-21T07:30:19","modified_gmt":"2021-04-21T11:30:19","slug":"no-more-agree-to-disagree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/?p=11575","title":{"rendered":"no more agree to disagree"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hang with the Intramuralist long enough, and one swiftly learns there are two popular phrases which oft prompt a rapid, negative (albeit playful) response: \u201cIt is what it is.\u201d<\/em> And\u2026 \u201cLet\u2019s agree to disagree.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is what it is\u201d simply feels hollow to me. It\u2019s more what we say when we don\u2019t know what to say \u2014 or \u2014 when we don\u2019t want to say any more. I remember it used years ago to describe a brawl between players and fans and to describe a high-profile, celebrity divorce. Surely, in both of those situations, there was more to say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My sense is \u201clet\u2019s agree to disagree\u201d is primarily employed in order to ensure relationships don\u2019t suffer. I get it. I just wish we would commit to more. Too often, the retort creates an easy exit to difficult conversation, when if worked through thoroughly and respectfully, it\u2019s an opportunity for growth and the broadening of perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I reflected upon said phrasing when coming across Lynn Uzzell\u2019s recent contribution to the RealClearPublicAffairs’s 1776 Series,<\/a> which \u201cexplains the major themes that define the American mind.\u201d Uzzell teaches American politics and rhetoric at the University of Virginia and Washington and Lee University. She shared an essay entitled, \u201cMadison\u2019s Five Lessons for Overcoming Polarization.\u201d The entire essay is excellent; hence, excuse my much too-concise, but longer-than-usual, blog post edit. If we could overcome polarization, we would no longer have to agree to disagree; we could do more. Writes Uzzell\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere has never been a time when our nation wasn\u2019t divided by partisanship. Yet some eras are more divisive than others, and few of us would deny that we\u2019re living through an especially polarized time. For those who don\u2019t trust their instincts on this question, numerous surveys bear out a collective hunch: polarization really has gotten worse in recent decades.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We don\u2019t lack for probing examinations of the causes. Ezra Klein blames modern social and news media. Charles Murray notes that ordinary class divisions have become intensified through American \u2018super zips.\u2019 Some studies blame the nationalization of local politics, while others suggest that even our leisure activities are exacerbating political divides. Predictably, each side blames the other for increased radicalization within their respective political parties.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While many of these studies provide genuine insights into our current condition and how we got here, too few have grappled seriously with the most pressing question: How do we get beyond the hyper-partisanship? Lessons drawn from our preeminent constitutional founder James Madison might prove helpful\u2026 Madison not only lived through one of the worst epochs of American partisanship but also helped lead the country past that unruly epoch and into greater harmony. That\u2019s why his lessons are worth examining today.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesson 1: Teach Classical Rhetoric to America\u2019s Youth.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 The greater \u2018free speech\u2019 scandal is the one that nobody talks about: that most colleges and universities aren\u2019t teaching their students the purpose of free speech\u2026 It wasn\u2019t so long ago that an education in classical rhetoric was deemed an essential part of enlightened self-government. When Madison attended Princeton, he heard lectures on \u2018Moral Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Eloquence\u2019 from none other than John Witherspoon.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Madison\u2019s interest in the subject outlasted his college days. In 1784, he ordered a copy of Hugh Blair\u2019s popular Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. \u2018True rhetoric and sound logic are very nearly allied,\u2019 argued Blair. The proper study of rhetoric is much more than the artistic arrangement of words; it \u201c\u2018eaches to think as well as to speak accurately.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not fair to castigate today\u2019s students as \u2018snowflakes\u2019; they\u2019ve never been taught a better alternative to disinviting, protesting, or shouting down campus speakers who challenge their presuppositions. If the standard curriculum included classical rhetoric, they would be equipped to engage logically with speakers expressing diverse viewpoints \u2013 to discover for themselves whether their visitor was a sophist or a Socrates, or something in between. Even better, their taste in speakers might become too refined for the most inane of the campus rabble-rousers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesson 2: Find Creative Ways to Encourage Both Sides of Every Argument.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 Madison was not na\u00efve. He understood that \u2018the one-sided publications which happen to predominate at particular periods\u2019 created a \u2018delusion\u2019 in the minds of people who encountered only perspectives that reinforced their own opinions. He whimsically suggested that the perfect solution might be an arrangement whereby each sheet of newspaper was printed on one side by a press representing one party, then printed on the other side by its rival. That way, readers could not avoid \u2018both sides of every question,\u2019 and \u2018truth would always have a fair chance.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the insularity and nasty tone of today\u2019s media \u2018bubbles,\u2019 Madison\u2019s suggestion might require further refinement. Currently, both sides in the political debate are writing in such polarizing fashion that a media diet that included listening to the other side\u2019s overheated polemics would not likely moderate or broaden anyone\u2019s opinions. Studies have shown that the experiment may have the opposite effect. Far more constructive would be publications or events designed to engage opposing sides in a format that encouraged civil disagreement\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesson 3: Socialize with your (Political) Enemies.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 Madison\u2019s administration established a social change in the nation\u2019s capital \u2014 one owing perhaps more to the president\u2019s vivacious and charming First Lady. Dolley Madison instituted regular Wednesday \u2018drawing room nights\u2019 at the White House, and everyone was invited. Her nonpartisan parties became so popular that they were known as \u2018squeezes.\u2019 One guest, Pennsylvanian Representative Jonathan Roberts, observed: \u2018By her deportment in her own house you cannot discover who is her husband\u2019s friends or foes.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, partisan rancor did not magically disappear over whipped syllabub and ice cream, but it was softened. One may disagree, vehemently, with a dining companion, but it becomes harder to demonize him\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesson 4: Never Allow Political Disagreements To Get Personal.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 In his public speeches, Madison could be a forceful voice for his political party, but he never allowed his criticisms to get personal. Toward the end of his life, Madison grew even more scrupulous: he actively concealed the faults he discerned in others. Dolley explained his editorial practice when preparing his private papers for publication: \u2018He desired me to read them over, and if any letter, line, or word struck me as being calculated to injure the feelings of any one, or wrong in themselves, that I would withdraw them or it.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 Madison\u2019s active avoidance of all personal affronts, even during political disagreements, is a standard of conduct sadly foreign to today\u2019s political discourse. Yet ad hominem is listed among the logical fallacies for a reason: it never improves our political understanding but invariably poisons our political atmosphere\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lesson 5: Repentance.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Madison grew older, he eventually regretted some of his youthful excesses\u2026 Madison later described feeling \u2018consciousness & regret\u2019 over those earlier compositions. Although he did not repent the positions he had defended, he thought these essays breathed a party spirit \u2018which was of no advantage either to the subject, or to the Author.\u2019<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 One of the biggest problems with a hyper-partisan era is that it produces excitements that tempt even capable and well-meaning individuals into misbehavior that they might spurn in better moments. Madison was right: there is no excuse for such vitriolic behavior; ultimately, the only recourse is regret, remorse, and a resolution to do better in the future. Unless our political and thought leaders adopt this lesson and reconsider their own contributions to today\u2019s toxic political climate, there is no hope for improvement.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Uzzell continues, noting that \u201cthe stakes are high, since the surest and most final way to resolve polarization is through armed conflict.\u201d That gets a little scary to me, as she asserts that \u201cthe most hyper-partisan era in our history, after all, was not the 1790s; it was the 1850s, which ended in the Civil War. Every civil war is simply partisanship that got out of hand.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every civil war is simply partisanship that got out of hand.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can learn to overcome polarization. But we must do more than look down on another, demand they think like me, or silence and shut them down. We must do more than agree to disagree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AR
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hang with the Intramuralist long enough, and one swiftly learns there are two popular phrases which oft prompt a rapid, negative (albeit playful) response: \u201cIt is what it is.\u201d And\u2026 \u201cLet\u2019s agree to disagree.\u201d \u201cIt is what it is\u201d simply feels hollow to me. It\u2019s more what we say when we don\u2019t know what to … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “no more agree to disagree”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-event"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11575"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11575\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11579,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11575\/revisions\/11579"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/intramuralist.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}