What does it mean for a group of people to be "positively," "negatively," "accurately," or "inaccurately" represented in media? Ed Schiappa has spent quite some time thinking about these questions, and his research complicates what many think of as a "good" representation. Tell us your argument stories! Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com Follow us on Instagram
Leila Brammer, the curriculum director for the Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression at the University of Chicago, used to defend competitive two-sided debate as an educational tool. She now argues that such debates can limit deep, long-term critical thinking. She argues that debate’s binary structure encourages polarization rather than understanding complicated issues with many points of view. Brammer highlights alternative models that require students to gather multiple perspectives, work t...
Dan McCarthy, who edits Modern Age, thinks that what many believe to be “good” democratic citizenship is completely unrealistic. He challenges the idea that voters need expert-level knowledge and instead argues that elections are really judgments about whether life is getting better or worse. Along the way, he exposes the tension between intellectual elites and ordinary voters and why humility might be the missing ingredient in our politics. It’s a sharp, provocative conversation about expert...
During this holiday season, we are re-releasing some of our most popular episodes about conflict in relationships from the archive. A Thanksgiving blowup in 1989 shattered one family and shaped a lifetime of how sociologist Heath Hoffman understands conflict. In this raw and candid conversation, Hoffman traces how antagonism, avoidance, and inherited communication habits echo into adulthood. He opens up about wrestling with his own “uncivil” tendencies, the shame that follows, and why silence...
Nick Longo shares the origin story behind Providence College's “dialogue walls,” a creative public-art tool designed to spark conversations in polarized times. Longo, professor of Global Studies and co-director of the Dialogue, Inclusion, and Democracy Lab, recounts how speaker cancellations and national political controversies pushed him and his students to build proactive spaces where questions—not shouting matches—lead. Longo takes us inside the craft of asking genuinely invitational quest...
Joseph Uscinski pushes back hard on the widespread claim that conspiracy theories are exploding in America—and brings decades of data to prove it. Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami, explains why journalists and the public confuse visibility with prevalence, why viral anecdotes mislead us, and how conspiratorial thinking has been a feature of American life long before the internet. Along the way, we discuss politicians’ use of conspiratorial rhetoric, nostalgia for a “...
As we approach the holidays, When We Disagree is re-releasing episodes about tough conversations with friends and family. This week's episodes are both about arguing with friends about conspiracy theories. When communication professor Bill Keith found himself unable to reason with a close friend consumed by conspiracy theories, he faced a humbling question: what happens when dialogue fails? In this episode of When We Disagree, Keith examines the limits of civility, the psychology of self-seal...
As we approach the holidays, When We Disagree is re-releasing episodes about tough conversations with friends and family. This week's episodes are both about arguing with friends about conspiracy theories. When college student Victor Dupont’s coworker claimed the moon was a government projection and gravity a hoax, he found himself face-to-face with a flat-Earth believer—and the limits of argument. In this episode, Victor explores what it’s like to reason with conspiracy-minded friends, why c...
When does government transparency actually build trust—and when does it backfire? Todd Glover is the executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina. A former city manager, Glover joins When We Disagree to share what a $25,000 logo fight taught him about communication, public outrage, and the art of making numbers meaningful. From packed gymnasiums to calm councils, Glover reflects on how misunderstanding fuels fear, why information must come early, and why faith in the reas...
When Lia Howard, the director of the Political Empathy Lab at Penn, took seven undergrads across 2,500 miles of Pennsylvania during the 2024 election season, she wasn’t looking for votes—she was looking for understanding. In this episode, Leah shares what happens when students practice democratic listening in politically divided towns, where truth itself can come from different sources. From tense conversations about George Soros to unexpected moments of warmth and connection, she explor...
What happens when a conversation changes you—but the other person never knows? University of Virginia professor Rachel Wahl shares her research on student dialogues that linger long after they end, including one that revealed both the promise and heartbreak of real engagement. This episode dives into what it takes to build understanding across deep divides—and why curiosity and respect might be democracy’s most radical tools. Tell us your argument stories! Email guest and topic suggestions...
In this episode of When We Disagree, political philosopher Daniel Layman dives into his book-length debate with anarchist Michael Huemer, tackling one of the most fundamental political questions imaginable: is government ever legitimate? Layman defends the messy, imperfect middle ground — what we call “the slog” — arguing that while governments can be unjust, they’re what make equal rights possible. We explore why nuance is hard to defend in a world that loves slogans and how to emphasize gre...
Chris Lundberg, professor of Communication at UNC and the founder and CEO of Vocable Communications, asks what it really means to educate good citizens in a divided age. Should universities focus on teaching facts or on teaching how to listen, argue, and think together? Lundberg makes the case for learning to disagree well—turning opinion from a possession into a starting point for shared understanding. Together, we explore how hope for democracy lies not in perfect consensus, but in the ever...
Jon Sklaroff, a podcast and public media professional, comes in hot with a controversial claim: there’s only one true pizza — New York style. A lighthearted food debate moves into a deeper conversation about meaning, majority rule, and why definitions matter. We explore whether pizza — and truth — should be decided by consensus or by conviction. A hilarious, oddly profound argument about how we define the things we love. Tell us your argument stories! Email guest and topic suggestions to u...
Julie Rose - journalist, radio host, and creator of the weekly shows Top of Mind and Uncomfy - shares the deeply personal story of her biggest regret: years of unproductive arguments with her mother over cable news. In this moving conversation, she reflects on why even the most skilled interviewers can lose curiosity when emotions and identity get tangled up at home. Julie’s honesty about what she wishes she’d asked instead offers a masterclass in empathy, humility, and learning to listen - e...
What happens when a dialogue expert loses his cool? Vince Greer, Associate Dean of Students and Director of Dialogue & Belonging at Claremont McKenna College, unpacks an argument with a close friend over women’s rights that shook his confidence as a professional listener. Together they explore when neutrality stops being a virtue, how to hold space for passion without disrespect, and why being effective sometimes matters more than being right. Tell us your argument stories! Email guest...
Mary Kate Cary is a former White House speechwriter for President George H. W. Bush and a lecturer at the University of Virginia, where she teaches Democracy Out Loud a course on great American speeches. In this episode, Cary explores the long, complicated friendship and rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, tracing their relationship in three acts—from collaborators on independence, to bitter political opponents, to reconciled friends through letters late in life. She reflects on ...
Jordan Pace represents District 117 in the South Carolina House of Representatives and serves as Chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Pace recounts how his political conversion—from an ardent pro–Bush-Cheney neoconservative teenager to a libertarian-leaning Ron Paul disciple— was sparked by an unexpected conversation with Paul himself. Reflecting on that moment, Pace discusses the power of genuine dialogue to reshape convictions, the enduring tension between government power and personal lib...
Lara Schwartz, author of Try to Love the Questions, argues that our disagreements get stuck when we reduce them to binary yes/no battles. Instead, she calls for “lovable questions”—open-ended inquiries that push us beyond entrenched positions and into shared exploration. From campus debates over AI to national fights about free speech, Schwartz shows how the real challenge is deciding which questions remain open and which society has already answered. She makes the case that disagreement is a...
Former Congressman Joe Cunningham shares the story of how he broke ranks with his own party by calling on President Biden not to seek reelection—and the backlash that followed. From being the first Democrat in 2022 to publicly urge generational change, to his later role with the No Labels movement, Cunningham reflects on the costs of speaking out against political orthodoxy. His story raises big questions about loyalty, party power, and the limits of disagreement inside America’s two-party sy...