Alice Shea is a mother and physician living in Maine. She is also the creator of the online resource Maine Catholics Against Violence (MECAV.org).

As tension increases and anxiety heightens surrounding the increased ICE presence in Maine in the coming weeks, my thoughts have turned to the divided and fractured state of civil discourse in this country.

A New York Times/Siena poll from October 2025 showed that 64% of registered voters think the country is too politically divided to solve today’s problems. In the same poll, they identified the most pressing problem facing the country was political polarization (13%), just below the economy (16%). A Gallup poll from 2024 identified an even higher number of Americans (80%) who feel the country is greatly divided on important issues.

It seems that we have either lost our ability or our desire to argue well. In our society, an “argument” is often seen as the event that precedes a physical altercation or other violence. This leads us to avoid direct discourse with our neighbors and family. This fact only further divides those of differing views as we each tunnel down our respective rabbit holes of the internet/social media, consuming content that acts as an echo chamber for our beliefs.

However, the classical understanding of an “argument” could not be further from violence. An argument is how we can all arrive at the truth. In the classical sense, the logical argument, as championed by Aristotle and Cicero, begins with premises that lead to a valid conclusion. An example of this is the logical syllogism that uses a major and minor premise (or proposition) to reach a conclusion.

This can be expressed in neutral terms with letters/characters: “If p leads to q, and q leads to r, then p leads to r.” Thus, a real ‘argument’ is precise and methodical and has more in common with mathematics than angry conflict.

This style of rhetoric requires humility, as the speaker’s own argument is subject to the same rigorous standard as the opposition. If your premise(s) are not true or your argument is not properly structured and the result is subsequently invalid, you must reject your argument.

Likewise, you may find that you agree with some or all of your opponent’s premises but not their conclusion. Too often in the present day, rather than formulate our own arguments, we defer to pundits, ideologues or influencers who tout beliefs that follow some political or religious fault line. Too often, these individuals have disingenuous motives for their views in order to gain followers, power and money.

Thankfully, there are those who acknowledge that these internal divisions threaten the very core of our democracy. In the wake of the Charlie Kirk killing, the Republican governor of Utah, Spencer Cox, encouraged young people to “choose a different path” rather than the political rage that seems to be today’s standard.

Prior to this event, Gov. Cox was known for starting a “Disagree Better” initiative, pairing with the Democratic governor of Colorado, Jared Polis, to harness more effective ways of communicating and handling conflict. Currently, just under half of state governors (including Janet Mills) have committed to this initiative.

How can we achieve this reality of “disagreeing better”? Start by limiting your engagement with social media where faceless individuals post inflammatory comments on hot-button issues. Stop using dehumanizing or cruel language against those of opposing views. Have thoughtful conversations with the people you meet, your family and your neighbors — particularly if they don’t share your viewpoint or background.

Regularly read verifiable factual news stories, from news outlets across the political spectrum. And finally, frame your understanding of current events against the backdrop of history.

We need to read widely, think critically and formulate arguments again. We need to speak respectfully and listen earnestly. The success of our peaceful free democracy depends on it.