President Trump inherited an incredibly divided nation; one that daily demonstrates it has little interest in becoming less so. In fact, the one thing people can agree on is that there is a lot of disagreement.
In William McKenzie’s interview with Arthur Brooks, “How Americans Can Live, and Thrive, with Intense Political Disagreement,” Brooks argues that competition between differing ideologies is not only productive and necessary, it’s the mark of a healthy society. Vigorous disagreement is the process through which we recognize ideas as valid and distinct, provoking people to reason through and advance ideological positions while considering counterpoints presented by the opposing side.
“Liberals should be liberals. Conservatives should be conservatives. We should not be bashful about smart, strong disagreements about which public policies are the best instruments for helping more people access freedom, prosperity and the pursuit of their happiness,” Brooks says.
In a society governed by the people, for the people, wrestling with various ideological paradigms is how we arrive at optimal consensus and maximum freedom. This is why Brooks advocates for “localism” as a way to prevent national policies that are insensitive to the regional issues affecting Americans where they work and live.
So if diversity of thought is such a good policy objective, why are we currently experiencing such an incredible resistance to it? Across the political spectrum there is pushback against even the hint that perhaps we should move past the emotional upset of the election and towards the myriad other policy issues that could benefit from honest, sincere input from both parties.
Read more at The Federalist.