Why Do We Disagree?

I wanted to talk in this essay about politics.

Not about Republicans or Democrats. I really don’t fit in either category. And neither should you, really. Political parties aren’t religions, and you don’t owe them your authority like a peasant may have once owed their king theirs.

Nor am I going to talk about conservatism or liberalism, the philosophical positions behind the party’s true believers. While I do love political philosophy and love the debates that take place within philosophical circles, the kinds of disagreements that emerge from such discussions can be esoteric and leave people feeling uncomfortable. Most people aren’t interested in those things, so I have no intention of talking about them in this essay.

Rather, I’m going to be doing what I’ve been doing in my other essays: looking at a cultural phenomenon and giving my take on things. I’m going to talk about politics in the same way I’ve talked about social distancing and tsundoku. Taking apart a problem and coming up with a solution to the problem.

Is it possible to boil politics down to a single problem? I believe so. The problem with politics is that it divides people and tears them apart. It leads to incoherent shouting matches and demonization, even between family members. Where there is politics, there is conflict. Where there is conflict, there is no peace. And peace is almost universally seen as a good thing. Is it any wonder that the word “politicize” has such a negative connotation (i.e. “politicizing health care”)?

Politics is a conflict. But over what? Different people give different answers, but the two answers I find most common are what I call the “technocrat’s theory of politics” and the “zealot’s theory of politics.” I find that, as a general rule, the more one who holds either of these views (or worse yet, some combination of the two), the more unpleasant one becomes, both in political discussions and in their daily lives. Fortunately, these views are largely wrong, for the reasons I’ll give below.

The technocrat’s theory holds that politics is a battle over the relevant facts of the matter. They’d emphasize the expertise of the people on their side and the stupidity of the people on the opposite team. In older societies, such experts were usually priests of some religious group or other. In modern times, scientific experts perform a similar role. This is why news programs and politicians alike trod them out whenever they need some talking head to explain things. The technocrat believes his opponents are ill-informed or inconsistent, and, if there was a rigorous and honest debate between both sides, the mass of people would see that his side was the best.

But there is a major problem with this theory. People change these scientific beliefs on a regular basis according to the evidence, or according to peer pressure, or according to any number of other things. Furthermore, there’s no certainty to these sorts of beliefs either; they’re always shifting according to what new information our brains take in. If political factions were based on such facts, then they wouldn’t last long, and they would be constantly indecisive.

The zealot’s theory holds that politics is a battle between good and evil. They’d emphasize the moral righteousness of their cause while holding up the bad actors of the opposing side as examples of their nefariousness. There can be no reconciliation between good and evil, they claim, so one side must utterly destroy the other. To the zealot, the moral righteousness of his cause is self-evident and requires no elaboration. You just see it or you don’t.

But the zealot’s view of good and evil is mistaken; good and evil are inside every human heart. As someone who has looked at the history of wars, I find that both virtue and viciousness can be found on both sides of any conflict, no matter which side is “correct.” And while there are such things as good or evil beliefs, they are only good or evil insofar as they lead one to act in good or evil manner; they aren’t good or evil in themselves. Tellingly, you’ll find that the zealot will ignore the morally righteous actors on the opposite side to him or find some way to denigrate them, all the while making excuses for the poor behavior of those on his own side.

So, what’s the correct theory of politics? Well, I believe that politics is, at its core, a conflict about the more fundamental beliefs people have. The very basic observations people have, the core moral values that they cling to, and the people and institutions they have loyalty towards. There’s a degree of permanence to these fundamental beliefs that cannot be shaken. Two people with opposite fundamental beliefs may come to see each other as evil because one considers good what the other considers evil, and vice versa. In other words, political conflict is a conflict between worldviews, a sort of theological conflict. Let’s call this the “theological theory of politics,” because it turns political belief into a species of religious belief.

How do we solve this problem? Saying that everyone should convert to all of one side is, I believe, patently foolish and unjust. While people can change their beliefs, such changes are dramatic, life-changing events. Saul’s conversion to Christianity was a paradigmatic example of such a conversion. Such events mark a crisis in faith followed by a rebirth of the person. This is something that people must come to through their own soul-searching, not something we can mandate from on high.

If people are going to differ in their fundamental beliefs, and converting everyone to the same way of thinking is an exercise in futility, then how can we prevent conflict? The answer is deceptively simple: to live and let live, to agree to disagree and carry on.

Now, I say this answer is deceptively simple because when most people say they’ll “agree to disagree,” they are trying to avoid confronting the issue at hand. They want to avoid having uncomfortable conversations by ignoring the differences between individuals. One could judge this as being cowardly or lazy, but we shouldn’t. Most of us have done this in the past, and most of the time, just avoiding the issue is all it takes to avoid a conflict.

But sometimes, such a conflict is unavoidable. Sometimes, you can’t just “agree to disagree” by leaving each other alone. They’re your family, your friends, your co-workers, or your fellow countrymen. They’re not someone you can ignore so easily. In this case, you will have to acknowledge the differences, to see why the other person believes differently from you, and come to an understanding that allows you to live and work peaceably with one another. Such resolutions are difficult. They take courage, honesty, and patience to come to and maintain. They take a common desire for peace and friendship. It’s no small wonder, then, that political conflict is so rife in our fallen world.