fbpx
In Utah, we can disagree better

Written by Rick B. Larsen

July 1, 2019

Originally published in Deseret News.

Utah does a lot of things right. While water cooler conversations and local headlines tend to highlight disagreements, those whose work exposes them to national counterparts know there are legislators and leaders nationwide who watch with respect — even a little envy — our approach to community decision-making and state governance.

Utahns should — at least now and then — gratefully recognize the fortunate state of our state. And resolve that regardless of differing positions on any particular issue on the horizon (or in the rearview mirror), that we will consciously respect and maintain the manner in which we approach problems. This requires an intentional look at why Utah enjoys prosperity, growth and relative civility at a time when states all around us — and the nation as a whole — are locked in dysfunction and contempt.

The simple truth is, we disagree better.

This notion was addressed in Arthur Brook’s commencement speech at BYU and spread rapidly across social media in Utah for good reason — people heard a truth that is critical for our time: We must learn to disagree not less, but better.

But what does this mean?

The philosopher F.A. Hayek said, “I confess I do not generally read books with which I expect to agree since there is usually little to be learned from them.” What a remarkable and confident notion: seeking books, articles, conversations with which you do not expect to agree, but with the expectation you may learn something.

To disagree better suggests that we develop (or maintain) the ability to suspend contempt, see the value in the ideas of others, engage with those we disagree with and, perhaps most importantly in the end, realize the benefits found in a healthy competition of ideas. It is almost selfish in its virtuosity.

Brooks writes in his latest book “Love Your Enemies”: “Disagreement is good because competition is good.” He states that free markets and democracy are the two things that have made the United States into the most successful nation in history. But it is the competition of ideas that underlies this success.

Generally speaking, these concepts ring true with people — because they are. They also provide a sense of hope in that we need not be afraid to have a point of view. After all, who wants to live in fear of expressing their own ideas and beliefs?

Two of the keys to realizing the benefits of competing ideas are as simple and as difficult as this: 1) allow the debate and 2) commit to a baseline of truth. Easier said than done, but necessary nonetheless.

Today, the most common response to disagreement is anger, followed by dismissal. We quickly retreat to our corners and the potentially beneficial exchange simply ends. Too many view those who disagree with them not as people of a different view but rather as people to be disregarded. It seems easier to walk away and move on. This is possibly a good strategy with an umpire at a Little League ballgame, but not for community leaders and elected officials — or with anyone you love and care about.

The problem with the “walk away” strategy is that ideas are lost, and the competition ends before a winning idea can emerge. If we are really good at it, we eventually silence certain viewpoints altogether. For this reason, we should be less concerned about disagreement, passionate debate or even protestors with a point of view, and more concerned when the intentions of the protestors are, in fact, to stop the conversation. We need to understand the difference. One requires preparation, thought, commitment and a competitive idea; the other requires contempt for any opposing view.

As for the baseline of truth, in our postmodern, slash-and-burn political environment, truth has become subjective. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Researcher Galen Watts explains it this way: “Postmodern philosophy gives you the power to crush any intellectual opponent because it allows you to make the case that everything they believe is socially constructed (rather than true), corrupt, oppressive, or all of the above.”

We need to be conscious about what we have that works in Utah — including civility, collaboration and a willingness to consider all sides — and even learn something new in the process. And we must be diligent in remembering that, much like freedom itself, this enviable ability to create principled solutions is subject to conditions including, and most often, our own behavior.

Reforming welfare and workforce policy elevates work

Reforming welfare and workforce policy elevates work

The success of the Utah model doesn’t mean the state is perfect; there are certainly still opportunities to improve how we help people get out and stay out of poverty. But there is no sustained path out of poverty that doesn’t include a meaningful connection to work.

read more

Connect with Sutherland Institute

Join Our Donor Network