<p class="wp-block-paragraph"></p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Americans disagree about many issues, yet meaningful argument seems to be diminishing.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The distinction between disagreement and argument is significant.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Disagreement is straightforward. One person states their position, another states theirs, and they find their views incompatible. If they are invested, they may repeat their points with increased confidence, often shifting the focus from the issue to personal attacks.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In contrast, argument requires a deeper engagement.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">An argument necessitates that one explains their beliefs with reasons that can be examined. If evidence is presented, it must be addressed. If weaknesses in reasoning are identified, the individual must respond rather than merely restate their conclusion. There must be a possibility that this process could lead to a change in belief.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Much of the current political discourse fails to reach this level of engagement.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">People are adept at announcing their positions and signaling their political affiliations.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">They can easily identify contradictions in opposing views while overlooking similar inconsistencies in their own. Political labels often do the work of reasoning, guiding audience reactions without assessing the validity of the ideas.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Assigning motives is also simplified. An opponent may be labeled as wanting to undermine democracy or as being solely motivated by self-interest. Once motives are established, the argument itself may become unnecessary.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The call is for more substantive arguments.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This does not mean escalating fights or insults, nor does it involve creating disagreements for media consumption. Instead, there should be more instances where one person presents a serious claim and another attempts to address it.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Historically, a structured form of argument known as <em>Disputatio</em> emerged in medieval universities. It involved posing a difficult question, defining key terms, and allowing participants to raise objections that needed to address the reasoning rather than simply stating disagreement.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The original speaker would then respond to these objections.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The response does not have to change, but it must account for the objections raised.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This requirement seems foreign in much of today's political landscape. For instance, a presidential candidate might finish a debate by acknowledging which of their opponent's objections was most compelling, or a congressional hearing might conclude with legislators identifying which testimony caused them to reconsider a bill.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The goal is not to foster niceness or to create consensus. Some arguments are rooted in issues that warrant strong emotions. The objective is to engage in meaningful discourse.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The American political tradition includes a history of vigorous argumentation over fundamental questions, requiring participants to provide reasons for their positions.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The debate surrounding the Constitution exemplifies this. Anti-federalist writer Brutus expressed concerns that a national government would centralize power, while Publius countered that a stronger government was necessary due to the weaknesses of the existing confederation. They debated representation, federal power, taxation, and the durability of state authority without resorting to labeling each other as anti-American.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">James Madison’s <em>Federalist</em> No. 10 highlights the importance of this discourse. Madison acknowledged that disagreement is inevitable due to varying interests and opinions. He noted that human reason is fallible and that different opinions will emerge as long as people are free to express them.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Madison’s insight suggests that the goal of politics should not be to eliminate disagreement but to determine how to respond to it.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Argument serves as one method to address disagreement.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">At its best, argument compels individuals to justify their positions and allows for the identification of overlooked costs or constitutional issues. This process can lead to changes in proposed legislation or reinforce the majority's stance.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While this process may appear inefficient, it is essential for thorough governance.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In legislative work, bills are introduced based on the belief that change is necessary. Questions arise regarding the implications of provisions, compliance, costs, and authority, all of which can improve the proposed legislation.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A legislature that merely counts votes neglects its purpose. The system is designed to expose ideas to scrutiny through committee hearings, amendments, and debates, reflecting the understanding that initial proposals may not be optimal.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Current political culture often discourages changing positions in response to objections, viewing such changes as signs of insincerity. Acknowledging a valid point from an opponent can be perceived as giving them an advantage, and admitting to being wrong carries risks.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Consequently, individuals often focus on defending their positions.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This pattern extends beyond elected officials to political discussions online, where responses often shift from addressing claims to attacking the source or previous statements, leading to a breakdown in meaningful conversation.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The implications of this trend extend beyond poor dialogue; the ability to engage in argument is crucial for self-governance.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Frederick Douglass exemplified this principle in response to the Supreme Court's decision in <em>Dred Scott v. Sandford</em> in 1857. He argued against Chief Justice Roger Taney’s interpretation of the Constitution, challenging his historical account and asserting that Taney’s reasoning should not dictate the country’s understanding of the Constitution.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Douglass did not temper his condemnation for the sake of civility; he aimed to demonstrate why Taney was incorrect.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Similarly, President Abraham Lincoln distinguished between obeying the court’s judgment in specific cases and treating its constitutional reasoning as beyond political debate. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln cautioned that if national policy became irrevocably determined by Supreme Court decisions, the people would have “ceased to be their own rulers.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">These examples do not suggest that every issue can be resolved through discussion. The history of slavery illustrates that argument alone cannot resolve deeply entrenched conflicts. The Civil War ensued, leading to constitutional amendments that abolished slavery and redefined citizenship and civil rights.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While argument has its limits, it is essential to foster a political environment where discussions are encouraged rather than stifled.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">In a constitutional republic, decisions must be made among individuals who continue to disagree.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Elections determine officeholders, legislatures cast votes, and courts resolve cases without requiring the losing side to concede intellectual defeat.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">However, it does necessitate that those who lose have a means to continue their arguments.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Lincoln’s first inaugural address remains relevant as it acknowledges that “unanimity is impossible.” While a majority must govern, it must do so within constitutional constraints, with the understanding that public opinion can shift.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Today’s minority can potentially become tomorrow’s majority.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">This possibility influences political dynamics. If individuals believe they can persuade others, they are more likely to articulate their views. Conversely, if they perceive that their opponents should never legitimately govern, the focus shifts from winning arguments to preventing opponents from exercising power.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There should be an expectation for more substantive arguments from political institutions.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Congress and state legislatures should conduct hearings aimed at testing legislation rather than merely generating media clips. Committee chairs should invite witnesses capable of presenting the strongest counterarguments. Legislators should be prepared to explain which objections influenced changes to bills. Candidates should be challenged to identify weaknesses in their positions rather than solely reiterating their strongest arguments.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Political journalism could also adopt this approach. It is common to ask politicians why their opponents are wrong, but it is more challenging to ask them to articulate the best argument from the opposing side first or to inquire what evidence might prompt a change in their stance.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Citizens also bear practical responsibilities.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Before responding to an argument, ensure that the other person recognizes the description of it. Inquire about the reasoning behind their conclusions. Differentiate between disagreements about facts and those about principles. When evidence is presented, address the evidence before questioning the credibility of the person presenting it.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Occasionally, it is important to say, “That changes my thinking.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Such statements should not be seen as humiliating; they signify that a conversation has had an impact.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">None of this requires individuals to become less partisan. Political parties represent genuine disagreements that matter. It does not require pretending that every argument is equally valid. Some arguments can be quickly dismantled, while others are based on falsehoods. Certain political positions warrant strong moral condemnation.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A culture of argument should reveal these weaknesses more clearly.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The alternative is the current state of affairs, characterized by extensive political disagreement with minimal examination of the underlying claims. We are aware of where everyone stands, their political affiliations, and which words trigger specific reactions.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">What remains unclear is the reasoning behind these positions. <em>Disputatio</em> begins with a question and an answer, followed by objections that address the reasoning, requiring a response from the original speaker.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">There is no obligation for anyone to leave persuaded; the only requirement is that they engage in argument.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>State Rep. Jason E. Thompson serves District 3 in the Utah House of Representatives.</em></p>