If only we could learn to disagree

The abuse and slander that characterizes much of public discourse does not even rise to the level of disagreement. Disagreement, after all, is a conflict between opinions, not people.

The Art of Disagreement

diagnoses the pathologies of political discourse and offers a healthy alternative. Most contemporary political philosophers claim that democratic discourse should aim at principled agreement, and there are many popular books about the art of persuasion, how to reach agreement, and getting to Yes. But where there is little civic trust—for example, across party lines—the quest for agreement backfires and generates antagonism. Nothing provokes dissent faster than the expectation that we should all agree. That is why the rhetoric of political correctness has provoked such violent backlash. Arguments are persuasive only when listeners trust speakers. To establish that trust, we must tell stories about why we believe what we believe. Where trust is high, we can rely on argument and persuasion, but where trust is low, we must rely on storytelling and understanding. By comparing the logic of argumentation to the poetics of narrative, this book offers a principled division of labor between argument and storytelling in political rhetoric. We show greater respect for our fellow citizens by seeking to understand them rather than by seeking to persuade them. Politics is the art of agreeing to disagree, and this book explains what kinds of agreement make disagreement possible.