20_January_2009_-_Inauguration_Day_(36842238115) (1)

Disagreement is Not Disunion

The inauguration of our new president is almost a week old. There’s one especially striking moment from his speech that can’t and shouldn’t yet slip from our memories.

In one of the most important moments in President Joe Biden’s inauguration talk last week, he turned to speak directly to supporters of President Trump: 

To all those who did not support us, let me say this: Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. And if you still disagree, so be it. That’s democracy. That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength.

Then he said, “Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion.”

Why was that such a critical moment?  Because it’s such a departure from what so many others are concluding right now:  that our disagreements (about race, or electoral security, or sexuality, or climate, or immigration) are so serious, so concerning, that, in fact, they do say something about our ability to remain one nation.  

It’s fair to say this is the common theme uniting all of the most divisive voices—on both sides of the political spectrum:  an insistence that if you disagree about X or Y, it says a great deal more than usual disagreements.  

Whereas it may be okay to disagree civilly about A or B, when it comes to X or Y, you are “threatening the health of the planet” or “threatening democracy” or “threatening minority populations” or “threatening public health overall.”

As we’ve pointed out in previous editorials, it’s on those questions that feel like “life and death” for different groups where these conclusions are especially easy to arrive at and embrace.  

How dare you threaten our very existence as a nation, as a minority group, as a planet, as a healthy public!?  

Our response to these questions is therefore far more visceral—invoking, as it does, a fight or flight response as do all questions of survival.  No wonder, then, those speaking from such a place portray others who disagree on these matters as not reasonable, not thoughtful, not good-hearted—but, indeed, dangerous threats.  And reckless—maybe even traitors—for believing what they believe?

Citizens who disagree vociferously can come together.


How easy it would have been for President Biden to channel a similar message.  

But he didn’t.  He underscored something very different—as he has his whole campaign.  When supporters—and critics—pushed Joe Biden to get in the mud, he refused.  

Over and over, and over again.  With remarkable consistency and precision.  

Which is why now President Biden can speak with authenticity about something precious that Americans are forgetting.  Something core to its own foundation as a country—the idea that citizens who disagree vociferously can come together and not only self-govern, but maintain a country together.  

That is at the heart of who we are as a people—all the way back—and we forget it at our peril.  

Liz Joyner argues this was the heart of the public square in America—“the spirit of all this talking” where “all of a sudden good ideas were coming from a bazillion different brains, not just the king’s one brain.”

As she recounts, “As you might imagine, the hotsy-totsy wrinkled old King, who liked ideas to come from his brain because he usually agreed with himself, didn’t like the [Public] Square a bit and he got pretty snippy and tried to make them shut up.

“It didn’t work.” After fighting a war to ensure they were free to keep disagreeing, Liz continues:   

They fussed and fought among themselves about this and that, but in the end, they decided to agree on what they could agree on and agree to disagree about the rest. And they decided to keep right on talking. They eventually agreed on a lot of important things so they wrote them down on paper. They even put in a lot of words to make it safe to keep disagreeing. You might have read it, it begins “We the People.”

Thank God there were people courageous enough to question this King—and lay the foundation of a country where these freedoms were everyone’s freedoms.  As our beloved Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation on the occasion of his own 1861 inaugural address: 

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Our new President Biden has modeled and reminded us some of the core underpinnings of this nation—in a moment where we’re liable to forget them.  

Thank you, President Biden.  Even if and when we (already) disagree with you on a multitude of issues, thank heavens we have such a foundation to rest ourselves on as a people.  

May that foundation endure all the challenges and messy conversation still facing us in the year ahead.  

About the author

Public Square Staff

Our core team, including our Editor, Managing Editor, Communications and Media Directors, Visual Display Director and Copy Editor.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Mapping Public Disagreements about Covid-19 Response

However nice it would be to feel unified in our response to COVID-19, there are many ongoing differences in perspective between thoughtful, good-hearted people. Could it help to map out fairly what those disagreements are?

Latter-day Saints need to tell their own stories + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Latter-day Saints need to tell their own stories Barrett Burgin—Deseret News I realize that no one can gate-keep Latter-day Saint cinema, but applying powerful rules of story and craftsmanship will yield the best results. Latter-day Saint filmmakers have something different, unique, and vitally important to offer. Born This Way? The Rise of LGBT+ as a Social and Political Identity Eric Kaufmann—CSPI Researchers looking at rates of LGBT+ identity, find the data suggest that while there has been an increase in same-sex behavior in recent years, sociopolitical factors likely explain most of the rise in LGBT+ identity Are Wars of Religion as Dangerous as Secularization? Émile Perreau-Saussine—Church Life Journal MacIntyre considers that the erasure of forms of belonging threatens the individual, whereas liberalism considers that forms of belonging threaten the state and tyranny. He considers that the same danger threatens faith and practical reason and that both pass through wisdom rather than calculation. Christianity is Not Merely Another Identity Ismail Royer—First Things The petitioner and the Court accepted the premises of the contemporary grievance-oriented mode of the modern liberal order, rather than the premises of the American founding, which holds that truth should prevail over falsehood as the source of our political order. A new ‘Jesus movement’? Evangelist Nick Hall says Gen Z is hungry for ‘something supernatural’ Ian M. Giatti—Christian Post Today’s generation wants a movement of their own, and Hall believes it’s time to unleash them and commission them to see their friends come to know Jesus.

We need more than consent to have ‘good’ sex

America Magazine, a Jesuit publication, talks to Christine Emba, a Washington Post columnist, about why so many people are having miserable sex when second wave feminism, #MeToo, and the sexual revolution was supposed to fix it all. Her conclusion is that consent is not enough of a sexual ethic. And that our sexual ethic must expand to include empathy and considering the good of the other. Her remarks reminded me of Daniel Frost’s article which he published in Public Square Magazine making a similar argument: Consent is Good, But Not Enough