For ‘Agree to Disagree’ to have Meaning, We Must Respect Each Others’ Rights

Every so often, someone will offer, as a “fix” for our contentious political discourse, a plea for people to “agree to disagree.” A recent New Jersey Star-Ledger letter is another example of that. In Let’s Agree to Disagree, school teacher Madelaine Riback declared herself “appalled by what I read, hear and see, whether it’s about the national scene, state, town or school board.” In advising us on how to evaluate candidates, we should resolve to “respect each others’ points of view in a respectful way, even if they are different from our own.”

We need to fact check what candidates say to see if what they say is even feasible. We need to listen to all candidates to see how they present themselves and learn about their character. I want representatives who are smart, diligent, respectful and respected. 

Four times the word “respect” is mentioned. In conclusion, “I feel as if the human race is succumbing to animalistic behaviors. Can’t we just be civil and agree to disagree?”

Certainly we must engage on the battleground of ideas in an intellectual way. Others’ viewpoints, no matter how opposed to one’s own, deserve a respectful hearing. Indeed, the only way to counter and defeat ideas one disagrees with or even abhors is to know what they are, challenge them directly, and then propose better ideas. “Animalistic behaviors”--emotional outbursts--won’t do it. But is respecting each other’s points of view in a respectful way enough? I posted these comments, edited for clarity:

“Agree to disagree” won’t fix our electoral mayhem. 

The call for people to agree to disagree must mean not just respecting others’ points of view, but more importantly honoring the rights of those who disagree to go on with their lives unmolested. Yet our political arena is full of people who want to get into office in order to use the legal machinery of the state to force their values on others in myriad ways. This tactic is increasing with each election thanks to the ongoing growth of government control over virtually all areas of our lives, and the corresponding ongoing erosion of our individual liberty. 

Consider the renewed calls for mandatory universal national service. I believe such a program is morally wrong. Yet many candidates shamelessly want to use the law-making machinery of government to force it on everyone. That means forcing my grandchildren into a year or two of involuntary servitude. Where is the “agree to disagree” if the people I disagree with want to force their values on me, my grandchildren, and anyone else who disagrees?

It’s not enough to “respect each others’ points of view.” Our appalling election culture can only get worse until we rediscover America’s Founding principles of constitutionally limited government and the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Most people still profess belief in those ideals, but only superficially. Few of us would ever think of forcing our values on others in our private lives. But those moral constraints go out the window when we turn to politics. Our elections will continue to bring out “the worst of people” until we actually apply those principles in the political arena. We must realize that our government should be subordinated to the same principles most of us live by as private citizens. That’s the real promise and purpose of the U.S. Constitution. Only then will agree to disagree actually work in our elections.

I wonder how Riback describes the United States of America. Does she refer to it as a democracy? If so, she should realize that democracy is tailor-made to bring out “the worst of people instead of the best”—which is why the Founding Fathers took pains to restrict the democratic process so as to protect individual rights. They created a constitutionally limited republic designed to make sure that our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property are protected from the electorate. Today, despite our constitution and its philosophical foundation, the Declaration of Independence, our lives, liberties, and property are increasingly at risk with each passing election. Agree to disagree has no chance in America until we roll back the democratic assault on our inalienable rights.

Related Reading:

 What does it Mean to Say: "We'll Have to Agree to Disagree?"

The ‘RIGHT’ to Disagree Must Also Mean the Right Not to be Forced

On This Constitution Day, Remember the Declaration of Independence

The Conscience of the Constitution: The Declaration of Independence and the Right to Liberty—Timothy Sandefur