When you hear someone criticize a policy on the other side

When Jonathan Haidt declared, “When you hear someone criticize a policy on the other side, that’s fine. But when you start hearing motive-mongering and demonization, stand up to it just as you would if it were something that was racist or sexist. If we avoid the demonization, disagreements can be positive,” he revealed a wisdom that touches the very heart of civic life. His words remind us that conflict of ideas need not become conflict of souls, and that to preserve the dignity of discourse, one must guard against turning opponents into enemies.

The ancients themselves saw the same danger. In the Athenian agora, debates rang fierce, yet Socrates taught that to seek truth one must challenge arguments, not malign the character of those who hold them. For once demonization begins, dialogue dies, and with it the hope of finding wisdom. Haidt’s words are thus an echo of this ancient lesson: that the health of a society depends not upon silencing disagreements, but upon ennobling them.

History offers a grave example. During the French Revolution, at first men debated policies with passion, but soon they descended into suspicion and motive-mongering, labeling opponents as traitors rather than fellow citizens. The guillotine followed, and reason was drowned in blood. Contrast this with the debates of America’s founding, where Hamilton and Madison clashed ferociously over the Constitution, yet their disagreements gave birth to a stronger framework of government. One path shows the poison of demonization; the other, the fruit of vigorous but respectful contention.

Haidt also teaches that standing up against such dehumanization is a duty, not a choice. To remain silent in the face of demonization is to permit the corrosion of community. Just as one must oppose racism or sexism, one must oppose the vilification of motives, for all these are weapons that strip away human dignity. It is through courage in speech, through the refusal to descend into contempt, that societies preserve the bonds of fellowship even amidst division.

Therefore, let us pass on this wisdom: let disagreement be sharp, but let it never be cruel. Let us remember that an adversary is not a monster, but a mirror, one who tests our ideas and strengthens our convictions. If we can resist the fire of demonization and choose the light of respect, then even the fiercest debates may become positive—forged not in hatred, but in the pursuit of truth and the common good.