Nuances in Boorstin's Disagreement and Dissent

Christofer Smith • Janaury 12, 2026 • 1151 Words

Introduction

In this given excerpt of his “The Decline of Radicalism” (1969), Daniel J. Boorstin emphasizes that disagreement and dissent are separate ideas, with our country thriving on disagreement, but floundering upon dissent. Boorstin’s critique of the general American view of dissent fails to account for the development of disagreement, as such an overarching topic can not be oversimplified without nuance.

Disagreement and Dissent

Boorstin asserts that “people who disagree have an argument, but people who dissent have a quarrel” (Boorstin 6). This disparity is best illustrated by the political climate of the United States today. Here, disagreements run rampant: those aligned with either the Republican or the Democratic party often fail to agree on policies regarding immigration and borders, the legal status of abortions, and whether or not transgender people are considered to be the gender they identify with. Something as critical as the national budget is now failing to reach agreement, as illustrated by the longest government shutdown in history, just two months ago. This event identifies a key oversight in Boorstin’s later statement that “a liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension” (Boorstin 8). He claims that disagreement allows for a liberal society, as America is, should prosper under arguments such as the matter of our budget. This falls apart, however, when we actually witness what that argument entails. With thousands of government employees furloughed and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits canceled, millions were thrust into financial and food instability. If this is the disagreement he is discussing, then ultimately, his point fails. This nation is not ‘thriving on disagreement’ — rather, I would argue, that we are being crushed by it. Millions are being threatened with malnutrition and a loss of income over disagreement. Is this what Boorstin truly argues for?

Counterargument

Boorstin continues in this excerpt, making the claim that “people may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority[,] but a person who dissents is by definition in a minority” (Boorstin 6). After analyzing the Latin etymology and stating that dissent “means originally to feel apart from others” (Boorstin 5), in terms of definition, Boorstin appears right. This can be illustrated through a hypothetical — while in a debate, you may feel that you are on the correct and ultimately winning side, you may find yourself feeling attacked and singled out if you are of a minority. I have seen this myself during in-class debates covering the topic of poverty, especially when experience from one’s own life was drawn upon. As classmates began to personally connect with the ideas they argued for, every strike from the opposition, similarly, felt less as an argument, but more akin to an attack against the proponent. This feeling of being alone, standing out as ‘wrong’ in the eyes of the rest, could certainly produce behavior that aligns with the ‘killing of democracy,’ such as a rising trend which, we can all agree, is rather deplorable: school shootings. Oftentimes, these extreme acts of violence are performed alone, orchestrated by one person. It is no great challenge to imagine that these lone gunmen likely felt isolated and disconnected from their peers, alone in their thoughts as one of the many results of nobody batting an eye of care upon them. A prominent example of what many could consider to be the archetype of the modern school shooting was that of Columbine — planned by two teenagers, actually. This duo, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, found refuge in each other, and rather than seeking to build out of their isolation, they enacted their wrath upon everyone they viewed as opponents. With such a trend of acts supporting his claim, Boorstin’s perspective on how dissension and disagreement differ in outside support is valid.

The Fundamental Flaw

The core thesis that Boorstin posits at the beginning of this excerpt is that “dissent is the great problem of America today [and that] it overshadows all others” (Boorstin 1). The issue with this notion, however, is that it is not dissent alone that eats away at the democracy we have built. I would argue, rather, that it is a lack of respect in both disagreement and dissent that is the problem at the core of our nation. There is no denying the fact that as a society, the United States is more polarized than ever. The recent budget disagreement in Congress, as I have mentioned, showed this — proponents of cutting back on Medicare/Medicaid spending wanted to push such through the budget, as a method of opposition, opponents of this would not sign on, and the proponents refused to back down. Regardless of what either side of the aisle was backing, neither side could agree that what mattered more were those on the line because of their squabble: the government employees and SNAP recipients who depended on this budget. Neither side respected the urgency of the situation. This act of manipulating major legislative measures for political leverage is not isolated to this case; in 2023, upon reaching the maximum amount the federal government can borrow, Congress became entangled in whether or not the amount would be raised or suspended without condition. With House Republicans demanding concessions regarding spending cuts and policies in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling and Democrats insisting on a ceiling raise with no strings attached, the United States came within potentially days of defaulting on all payments — a catastrophic scenario in which military salaries, Social Security, SNAP, and similar benefits could have been delayed or reduced, as well as interest rates spiking and economic instability as faith in the United States Treasury dwindles. Politicians were willing to bring Americans, millions of them reliant on these benefits, within hours of precariousness. This was not done out of necessity, but because disagreement was turned into leverage for political bargaining. I am aware, however, that I am, like Boorstin, oversimplifying the details. It can be argued that one side was acting in the interest of the general public more than the other, and there are a plethora of broader factors, like the agenda and alignment of our president, or the rest of the funding allocation in the budget, that resulted in the greater than month-long stalemate that we witnessed. Even beyond this, however, we can see social media as a prime example of both disagreement and dissent acting against our nation. Factions among both Republican and Democratic groups are forming, each with their own ideas, creating echo chambers that dismiss any information that counters their stances as illegitimate or lacking credibility. While Boorstin is correct, in that discussions require disagreement and debate to uncover the most agreed upon, practical solutions to what threatens our society, I believe that he fails to account for when that society begins to fragment under unrestrained disagreement. It is for this reason that I believe Boorstin’s distinction, although true in many respects, is failing to apply the nuance that understanding the full picture of non-agreement requires.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse