COLUMN: Under Trump, we can’t always agree to disagree
If 2017 has forced me to learn or recognize anything new, it is surely that I will no longer, as so many have suggested for productive discourse, “agree to disagree.” How often in political debate, whether 54 comments deep into a Facebook post or across the dinner table, has this phrase been used? In the past, I have readily accepted this sentiment as a pacifying and conciliatory end to what was likely a heated discussion. When an impasse has been reached, with no agreement in sight, the phrase “agree to disagree” presents itself as a kind of oasis, giving one permission to finally walk away and tend to that throbbing headache.
A couple weeks ago, however, I realized that agreeing to disagree should have little place in the Trump era. My realization began on a Saturday night at dinner with family and friends. I was, as usual, starkly outnumbered. The breakdown was exactly seven conservatives to one liberal. I, of course, was the lonesome liberal, attempting to anticipate whether politics would enter the conversation between appetizers and the main dish or closer to the time of signing the check. I think the word “Trump” creeped into the conversation around the time I finally picked up my fork and began to eat.
A family friend at the table first made a comment praising President Donald Trump’s travel ban. While I cannot recall his exact words, I remember asking myself, “Should I respond?” In situations such as this one, I repeatedly find myself caught between potentially setting off a fruitless debate that will leave me with nothing but a throbbing headache, or — as my nature compels me — speaking out against injustice. I chose the latter.
Two hours later, now at my cousin’s home, I was exasperated — unsure how many times the prejudice in the room could shock me — yet I was still unwilling to give up. That is, until my cousin, who had entered the debate back at the restaurant, through tired eyes, said, “I guess we just have to agree to disagree.” I paused. Then, as I typically do when this familiar phrase emerges, I gave him a half smile, nodded, and responded, “I guess so.”
Driving home and reflecting on the evening, I couldn’t shake that ending where I had agreed to disagree. It dawned on me then — when defending matters of life and death, agreeing to disagree is an untenable response. Assenting to “agree to disagree” is undoubtedly appropriate in certain contexts. My friends and family and I, however, were not debating whether cold weather or warm weather is preferable. We were engaging in topics that mean life and death for thousands of people depending on our government’s response. Trump’s proposed policies, such as repealing Obamacare and relaxing gun control laws, could not only take lives but also ravage entire communities.
These issues transcend partisan politics. They are some of the greatest moral issues of our time, and they demand our attention. Ultimately, only from a place of privilege is one able to agree to disagree. If Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids don’t threaten to tear your family apart and you need not fear a presidential administration so intent on scapegoating vulnerable communities, then one has the luxury of giving up a debate which has no personal consequences.
I decided that night that I will no longer be complicit and bask in the safety of my privilege. Rather, with love toward all, I will resist, and I will persist.
Bailee Ahern is a senior majoring in political science and international relations. Her column, “Vis-à-Vis,” runs every other Monday.