Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Manufacturing Dissent: How ‘Deep Disagreement’ Serves the Anti-Democratic Elite

"They want us divided sign" that represents partisanship among democrats and republicans.

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate.

Getty Images, Jena Ardell

In recent philosophical and political discourse, the concept of “deep disagreement” has gained traction as a diagnostic for the dysfunction of contemporary public debate. The premise is simple yet highly seductive: Some disagreements we are told are so fundamental, so rooted in incompatible worldviews or paradigmatically incommensurable epistemologies, that no meaningful argumentation is possible between the disagreeing parties. The implication is stark: Reason and Dialogue cannot bridge the gulf. But this diagnosis, while sounding sobering and serious, is in fact a dangerous illusion. It is an intellectual sleight of hand that masks both the manufactured nature of such disagreements and the vested interests that thrive on perpetuating them.

Indeed, contrary to its glossy surface neutrality, the notion of “deep disagreement” is not merely a philosophical tool but has become a performative trope, perfectly suited for an age of outrage, polarization, and algorithmic amplification. It helps rationalize the breakdown of dialogue, casting it not as a product of bad faith, deliberate miscommunication, or elite manipulation, but as a tragic inevitability of divergent rationalities. In doing so, it gives cover to a much darker political agenda: The delegitimation of democracy itself.


The Clickbait Economy of Conflict

We live in an economy of attention where conflict sells. Every disagreement — on race, gender, climate, or governance — is stylized into a clash of cultures and civilizations. Platforms reward dramatic oppositions that deliver on the sought engagement metrics – metrics that thrive on moral panic. Within this media environment, the idea of “deep disagreement” becomes less a description of reality and more a justification for constant performative polarization.

But what we call “deep disagreement” is often little more than scripted antagonism, played out for audiences, monetized through clicks, and used to construct parasocial loyalties. As Vanderbilt University’s Scott Aikin himself concedes in his essay “Deep Disagreement and the Dark Enlightenment,” even the supposed polar extremes — progressives and neo-reactionaries — share many conceptual frameworks: Illusions, red pills, false consciousness, performative rituals, and even the love of truth and critique. If such opposing camps speak in such parallel terms, how deep can the disagreement really be?

Useful Illusion for the Anti-Democratic Elite

One must then ask: Who benefits from the belief in deep disagreement? It most certainly is not the public. It is not the people trying to work through disagreement. It is not those who want to promote real democracy – that is, government by the people for the people. No, those who are handsomely served are the elite, particularly those aligned with authoritarian, technocratic, or corporatist agendas.

Because, if we accept that reasoned deliberation is no longer possible, then democratic governance — grounded in the contest of ideas — becomes quaint at best, but effectively obsolete. In its place, what is called for is “something bold,” “assertive,” “Nietzschian,” “vivaciously truculent", “decisive”, “risk taking,” (risk which predictably is always unloaded upon those very same denigrated people who will not only subsidize it but will also suffer the consequences of its failure and side effects) — language that thinly veils the push for rule by elites, CEOs, strongmen, and unelected technocrats. The alt-right critique of the “Cathedral” (a pejorative for liberal institutions), for instance, and its call for a post-democratic “gov-corp” (Land), are not “weird”, isolated intellectual fancies. They are aspirational blueprints for rule without accountability, governance without dissent.

In this light, the very concept of deep disagreement becomes a handsomely handy political instrument because it serves not to diagnose a problem but to demoralize citizens, delegitimize pluralism, and justify the concentration of power in the hands of those who claim to “see through the illusion.”

Deep Agreement: A Truer Ground

The notions that we are hopelessly divided or that we are locked into some sort of intellectually or cognitively irreconcilable values and worldviews have become a kind of modern gospel. It is repeated so often and with such certainty that few stop to question whether it is actually true. But outside the chambers of political spectacle, media-fueled outrage, and philosophy departments, a different reality emerges. Talk to ordinary people, and you’ll find a surprising degree of convergence on fundamental principles and on issues that matter. Most people believe that public officials should serve the common good rather than personal or corporate gain; they believe that elections should not be determined by who has the most money; they want access to affordable healthcare and quality education; they value truth, transparency, and fairness; they believe that power should be accountable, and that rules should apply to everyone.

These convictions are not marginal or niche. They persist across time, lines of race, class, geography, and political affiliation. They do not arise from some shared ideology so much as the shared experiences of economic precarity, institutional failure, and political betrayal. What we are witnessing is not deep disagreement, but deep misrepresentation. Because the common ground is there, obvious if one looks, but is obscured by systems that benefit enormously from the illusion of division. The political class, the commentariat, and the algorithmic engines of social media all have an interest in exaggerating conflict and suppressing consensus, so that disagreement becomes less about actual substance and more about performance; less about people disagreeing, and more about people being prevented from realizing how much they already agree on.

To acknowledge this is not to dismiss real differences, but rather to insist that those differences are eminently navigable and that they are, in fact, the normal conditions of truly democratic life. What makes democracy possible is not uniformity of opinion, but a shared belief that the process of reasoning together is worthwhile. The more radical claim, in fact, and the one that must be defended now, is that this belief has not died, one that rejects the illusion of a deep disagreement and that instead insists, as Mill did, that even our deepest adversaries can be engaged and that arguments are not futile exercises but essential acts of respect. Such shared reasoning is possible — even in a fractured time — not because we all think the same, but because we all can think together, and that beneath the noise, a deep agreement holds still — not a utopian one, but one that is sufficient and strong and robust. It is the true ground upon which a renewed democratic project can stand.

The truth is that “deep disagreement” is rarely as deep as claimed. What runs deeper is the desire for dignity, fairness, and self-rule — a desire that is frustrated, not by incompatibility of beliefs, but by systems built to fabricate division and amplify noise. Indeed, once upon a time, when a handful of powerful corporate media centers dominated the flow of information and narrative peddling, the establishment manufactured consent with ease and smooth consistency. But in our age of fragmented media, consent manufacturing is no longer possible, and hence the move to manufacturing and stoking artificial dissent.

To reclaim democracy, we must reject the illusion of deep disagreement and begin instead with the recognition of deep agreement and start building on that firm and deeply rooted shared foundation.

Ahmed Bouzid is the Co-Founder of The True Representation Movement

For a quick podcast introduction to TRM (21 mins), please go here and listen.

Read More

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball
a yellow baseball sitting on top of a table
Photo by Patti Black on Unsplash

Bipartisan Bonding on the Ballfield: Women in Congress Find Unity Through Softball

On a recent hot and steamy July evening in Washington, D.C., the players for a unique sporting event were warming up. Audi Field, home of the DC United and Washington Spirit soccer teams, had been converted into a baseball diamond. And the athletes were not some group of high-paid professionals – they were amateurs at softball, but not at politics.

This was the annual Women’s Congressional Softball Game, now in its 17th year. The game was founded by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Florida) and former Representative Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) as a vehicle to raise money for the Young Survival Coalition (YSC), a nonprofit that helps young women affected by breast cancer by providing resources and support. Wasserman Schultz was a breast cancer survivor at the age of 41 and explained in an interview before the game why she founded the event. “I knew when I came out on the other side, I wanted to use my platform to be able to help fill a void in the fight against breast cancer,” she said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz was sworn in for a second term as a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district, January 8, 2025

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz: Connecting With Community

Johanny Cepeda-Freytiz is an American businesswoman and politician who is a Democratic member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 129th district.

Cepeda-Freytiz was elected on November 8, 2022, and returned to Harrisburg for a second term after being re-elected in 2024. The 129th district includes parts of Reading and Spring Township as well as Sinking Spring, West Reading, and Wyomissing.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

ruler, measuring tape, working hands

Stitching & Sustainability: Refugee Artisan Initiative

Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, there has been an increase in anxiety around citizenship for immigrants and refugees in the United States.

By the end of his first day, Trump signed 10 executive orders relating to immigration. This included an order to halt refugee admissions, including tens of thousands of refugees who had already been cleared to come to the U.S. by the Biden administration. The order, “REALIGNING THE United States REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM,” largely targets the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

Keep ReadingShow less
It’s Time for a New American Agenda
blue and white star print textile

It’s Time for a New American Agenda

America is once again gripped by multiple political and societal crises. Most days in our local communities and in our wider public lives it can feel like we’re living through dizzying confusion, chaos, and division.

Acrimonious partisanship only deepens in Washington, DC, and our state capitols. Renewed calls for a third party are heating up, while Democrats plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to understand voters better, as if they had just discovered some new civilization. It’s like we’re collectively stuck in the Tower of Babel, unable to understand one another and what we share in common.

Keep ReadingShow less