While we will always have vehement disagreements on important

The words of Mike Johnson—“While we will always have vehement disagreements on important issues, we can disagree better. We have to. The stability of our society and our form of government depend upon it.”—speak with the gravity of a truth known since the dawn of democracy. He acknowledges that conflict is inevitable in human affairs, for no two hearts beat alike, no two minds hold the same vision of justice or destiny. Yet he warns us that the manner of our disagreement is the hinge upon which the survival of society turns. If we fight with respect, nations endure; if we fight with hatred, they collapse.

The ancients understood this with piercing clarity. In the Athenian assembly, men argued passionately, voices rising with heat and conviction. Yet beneath the turmoil was an unspoken covenant: that the city itself was more important than any one faction. When that covenant held, Athens flourished. But when disagreement turned into contempt, when rivals were no longer opponents but enemies, the city devoured itself, descending into tyranny and ruin. Johnson’s words are a modern echo of this ancient truth: the form of government cannot outlast the spirit of its people.

History bears witness again in the founding of America. The debates of the Constitutional Convention were fierce, often bitter. Men like Hamilton and Jefferson, Madison and Adams, clashed over visions of government. Yet they remained bound by a deeper loyalty to the idea of a republic. Their disagreements did not destroy the union, because they still sought to disagree better. From their heated arguments arose a framework that has endured centuries. This is the heart of Johnson’s warning: that disagreement is not the danger—dishonorable disagreement is.

The quote is also a rebuke to our own age, when disagreement too often descends into personal hatred, when neighbors see one another not as fellow citizens but as enemies, when the public square is poisoned with contempt. Johnson reminds us that such a path leads only to instability. A people who cannot disagree with respect cannot govern themselves. And when self-government fails, the vacuum is filled by the rule of force. The stability of our society depends upon civility.

This teaching carries both a stern warning and a noble call. The warning: if we allow anger, insult, and vengeance to define our debates, our government will fracture and our freedom will wither. The call: to remember that even in the midst of vehement disputes, we are bound together by a greater cause—the preservation of a just society. To disagree better is not weakness; it is strength. It is the discipline of those who place truth above ego and the republic above faction.

The lesson for us is clear: practice disagreement as an art of honor. Listen before condemning, argue with reason rather than rage, oppose without dehumanizing. Recognize that the one who stands against you today may stand with you tomorrow, for alliances shift, but the nation endures. Above all, remember that your adversary is not your enemy but your fellow citizen, sharing in the same destiny. To forget this is to cut the very fabric that holds society together.

Practically, this means cultivating habits of humility in our daily lives. In families, in workplaces, in communities, let us model what it means to disagree without hatred. In politics, let us demand of leaders not only conviction but courtesy, not only courage but restraint. For if the people learn to disagree well, then government will reflect their strength. If the people indulge only in scorn, then government will mirror their weakness.

Thus, Johnson’s words endure as a beacon for our age: “We can disagree better. We have to.” Let us take this as more than counsel—it is command. For upon it rests the stability of our society and the survival of liberty itself. If we master the art of honorable disagreement, our republic will flourish even amid storms. If we do not, the storms will tear it apart. The choice lies not in our leaders alone, but in each of us, every time we raise our voices in debate.