The most fundamental aspect of politics is that it is based on opinion. When did our society forget that? There is no right and wrong in a person’s political leaning, only opinions and differing opinions. 

This idea is difficult to digest when political debates over the last decade have moved further from opinionated dialogue and towards medieval fights to the death. If the most powerful political leaders in the world are unable to set an example of temperance and understanding within a political discussion on the world stage, how can anyone be expected to? Sure, people have different approaches and opinions regarding the pressing issues of society, but the widespread division seen in politics today goes against the founding ideals of our democracy completely.  

If we as a country intend to base ourselves on a constitution that allows for the freedom of speech, press, and thought, why is it that many citizens are condemned for enacting these exact rights? Of course, not everyone has to agree, but how is it that we have reached a place in society where many, if not most, will choose to ignore opinions different than their own? 

If all people were to separate themselves completely from exposure to other perspectives, how would societal progress be made at all? All progress made in human history came about because of the intermingling of differing thoughts, ideas, or opinions. Furtherment occurs as the result of disagreement, dialogue, peer review, or any of the other ways by which an individual reveals a different perspective. One of the distinct aspects of the human experience that we might all be able to accept is this: the world that we perceive is a direct reflection of our own unique experience as a human being. What makes any person’s worldview inferior to one’s own? The answer to this question is ignorance.  

In recent years, the polarization of modern politics has made it so that civil discourse is, in many cases, unattainable. Even in my personal life, I’ve faced interview questions targeted at my assumed political leaning and have had a hiring manager cancel an interview after becoming aware that I had previously worked for someone of a different political affiliation.  

As a young adult still exploring the entirety of the political spectrum to identify my own opinions, how is it that an interview with a school board member began with a question of concern regarding a previous political experience? The polarization of our society has gone so far that individuals are reluctant to associate with an individual that could have a differing opinion. Political discourse is the basis of our democracy, a positive aspect of the founding ideals of our country, and it is crucial to reintroduce it as such. Participating in such a conversation is a skill that society should always foster. 

Although cliché, I find it necessary to first define political discourse before I delve into the qualities that are commonly abandoned in current discussions within the political sphere. Political discourse is practical argumentation in deciding for or against an action that can ground decision. Although uncommon, if an argument is ever going to end in grounding a decision from another person, there are aspects of modern political discourse that eliminate the possibility of this end and they all have to do with ignorance. 

Mutual respect is incredibly important to keep in mind when participating in any kind of an argument. To express that your own opinion is superior to another person’s will not further your argument and will only lessen the other individual’s respect for you as well as make it more difficult for them to fully consider your perspective. Instead, if arguments are approached from the standpoint that all human experiences are different and therefore opinions are bound to vary, productive discussions can ensue. 

An equally important aspect of political discourse is the evidence used. Constructive political discourse is unattainable if we are unable to agree upon the same set of facts. Patrick Stokes, a philosophy professor, said it best: “you are entitled to have an opinion, but only as long as [you are] able to reasonably argue for it with evidence.” No argument should be backed by false information and every person participating in argumentative dialogue is responsible for collecting trustworthy evidence. Ideally, information would be gathered from unbiased sources, but realistically, this is not the type of media that our society commonly consumes. To gather evidence that is worthy of being used within a discussion, one can absolutely look at sources widely known to have biases, such as Fox News or CNN, but these individuals are then also responsible for checking this information by utilizing other sources. If you are backing your opinion with false information, it becomes less valid. Everyone is entitled to their own schools of thought, but this also makes them responsible for formulating effective arguments regarding these beliefs. 

Patience is also vital to have a productive discussion. Losing one’s temper because of disagreement weakens the content of an argument and becomes the takeaway from said discussion. If you do intend on communicating your opinions to people of differing perspectives, be patient. If you cannot be patient, keep your opinions to yourself.  

The most productive of arguments must be based in mutual respect, factual evidence, and patience. To develop the skill of constructive political discourse means being open to having difficult conversations with individuals you do not agree with, and more so, it is our responsibility as members of a democratic society to have the knowledge to participate fairly and responsibly within these conversations.