Dissension Or Disagreement: Support By Daniel Boorstin

Dissension or Disagreement As supported by Daniel Boorstin, dissension equals democracy’s cancer, while disagreement, its lifeblood. However, sometimes dissension pushes democracy forward. Primarily, disagreement shapes a democracy. Disagreement details an argument. Reasoning behind this includes the fact that disagreement allows for other’s ideas, mainly the majority, to be heard. Also, America built itself from disagreement with each other when they attended the Continental Congress, the delegates disagreed with each other for months each time they were together until they gained a solution for their issues. Responding to the Intolerable Acts and creating a declaration were two of their solutions. “The government itself, which is only
This can be supported by The Golden Rule painting, which states “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which dissension does not support, but disagreement does (Source I). For instance, dissension ends in fighting and sometimes, war. Dissension also does not create respect for both sides of the party. An example of dissension proving to be the cancer is in the First World War. In World War One, it all began with Franz Ferdinand being killed by a Serbian. This started the fighting between Austria-Hungary and Serbia which caused allies to fall toward one side or the other, disagreement turned to fighting and a few years later, there were more than a million dead. Dissension proves the cancer for democracy throughout these
Dissension describes a disagreement that results in fighting. Dissension helps democracy by not allowing for oppression, and oppression ruins democracy, as stated by Upton Sinclair, “SURELY oppression maketh a wise man mad” (Source E). Dissension helps democracy in some aspects, as with the American Revolution. It has also help France with their revolution. If there had not been dissension within France at this time, there would have not been change. Another example is with the American Civil War, if there had been no dissension between the North and the South, there would have been no change. Dissension was also necessary in the dust bowl, in The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck shows how the disagreement between the tenant farmers and the owners results in no change, the farmers then begin to talk of fighting the bank, but the owners say that is not a good idea (Source H). This results in the tenant farmers submission. That makes for no change and resulted in a nation with a monopoly, which does not agree with democracy. Eventually, the tenant farmers dissented and began to fight back. This resulted in the restoration of American Democracy. Another example of democracy was when Americans were establishing a new government “the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted” this principle wouldn’t have worked with just disagreement, the Americans had to dissent (Source F). In these few